Evolution in the News

Fossil Fish Sheds Light on TransitionScientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they’ve had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened. The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.Comment: We’ll see what AIG has to say about this in a week or so.

Several Professors Sign Document Expressing Skepticism Towards DarwinismThree engineering professors from the University of Michigan have added their signatures to the list, which includes nine professors from MIT, as well as others from UC Berkeley, the Center for Disease Control, and the US National Academy of the Sciences. On Wednesday, March 29, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, one of the signers of this document, gave a presentation on the questions that quantum mechanics has raised regarding the beginning of the universe…Comment: More "rubes" from U. Mich and MIT? Evolutionists should be sh*tting their pants right about now.

Did the ACLU Squeeze the Intelligent Design Decision out of Dover?A few months ago when the ACLU announced that they “generously” would only demand $1 million in attorneys fees for the Kitzmiller case, the casual observer probably thought nothing of it. However, once the facts are examined, as Manzari and Cooper nicely lay out, the attorneys fees collected by the ACLU are not merely the cost of losing a lawsuit, but rather look much more like a fat taxpayer funded gift to the ACLU & AUSCS. Comment: We all know lawyers are about the benjamins, but $1M at taxpayer expense? Cads.

Crisis Magazine Reviews American Museum of Natural HistoryThe semantic shuffle from ‘variation’ to ‘evolution’ nonetheless fools a lot of people….What the show really demonstrates is that Darwinism has turned into a public orthodoxy that must be defended at all costs.Comment: Agree completely.

Wacky creationist portrayed on SopranosComment: Check out the clip. Definitely a caricature, and most evangelicals, even the YECs, would disagree with the "salvation and evolution are mutually exclusive" bit.

6 Responses

AIG? It is still just a fish (or amphibian) but part of the evil evolutionst plot. Radiometric dating is wrong. Have you considered "Reasons to Believe" instead? They at least accept the age of the earth.
The dissent list could easily be signed by a "Darwinist" because of its wording. Also, should we be trusting engineers to tell us about biology? Nuclear physicists are smart people, but I would not trust them to design a skyscraper.
I would have to look into the lawsuit issue, but the entire thing could have been avoided if the earlier board had not volunteered for a test case.
Evolution is varitian from an evolutionists perspective. Creationists are the ones who who seperate the two, but they are so completely rejected by the vast majority of scientists that museums do not consider the issue worthwhile.
Try being gay. I would not know fashionable if it hit me, but seriously, an obvious nut is hopefully an obvious nut.

1. Yeah, reasons to believe are OECs. But besides the fact that I am a YEC sympathizer (and former biochemist), I just like AIG better.
2. Radiometric dating is highly questionable, esp. because of it's founational assumptions, which, if wrong (and they very well may be), make radiodating questionable in my mind.
3. Biologists aren't the only ones that can tell us about the origins of the universe. Astronomers, palaentologists, and even physicists can give us insight into origins, time, and the nature of our physical reality.
4. You are right, evolutionists are quite unable to separate the idea of macroevolution from every other kind of change – what they are really doing is failing to separate their assumptions and worldview from the facts, and so merge them, thinking them synonymous and equally true.
5. The whole point of the Dissenters List is that a growing number of reputable scientists doubt the orthodoxy – there is no conspiracy, but many think that we have an unsubstantiated orthodoxy, a group-think in the scientific community. That's the whole discussion. For the nth time, we all know that "a vast majority of scientists" believe evolution. But yes, we believe there are reasons why, in this case, the vast majority may be wrong. But there is such great resistance to anyone being truly critical of the party line, that a movement has sprung up to push back the forces of belief so that free inquiry can again reign.
You may think that IDists and creationists are trying to push their own religions, but really, they are just trying to displace the hegemony of the evolutionary faith system out so that it may share the pedestal of primary assumptions with other valid assumptions, and then let the science speak for itself rather than filtering it through the often dark glass of evolution.

In what way are the radiometric assumptions questionable, the measurements seem consistent in the lab, field, and several thousands of lightyears away?
On the nature of assumptions, I think the reverse is also true. Religious conviction acts as a filter for all other information, so a Biblical literalist would always reject evidence that does not support their view. In schools creationism may well be an attempt to push views, but in general I think creationists reject arguements that differ from their religious beliefs. I can understand the thinking of theistic evolutionists, but young-earth creationism seems especially insane to me.

Well, here's a whole page of YEC articles on carbon dating for you, but in brief, the assumptions are:1. The decay rate has remained constant over time.
This is a pretty sound assumption based on what we observe, but there is some evidence that decay rates, as well as the speed of light, are slowing down. If that is the case, then the universe and earth are younger than they look. I admit, the evidence for this slowing is dubious, but it is interesting. Of course, OECs don't buy it, only YECs.2. The starting ratios of isotopes is known
We assume the starting ratios of, say, C14 to C12. But what makes those assumptions correct?3. No other forces have affected the ratios along the timeline.
Are there any natural environmental processes that might affect the decay rates, or change the ratios?
Another factor is that each of the isotopes is only accurate within certain age ranges. So if an item is less than the minimum date that the radio dating method can measure, it will always give a number too high. But I'm not sure if this is true. Check out the links at the location above for why YECs doubt radio dating.
Most people, including myself, think YEC crazy before they look at the arguments. Myself, I was a biochemist, and despite my skepticism, I found many YEC arguments engaging, and their doubts credible in some instances. It only seems crazy because we have been indoctrinated, not by the facts of science, but by the worldview of science which may not reflect many of the facts, but spin them and filter them for us.

While I would agree that differenes in the initial amount would be helpful, that is why they use multiple materials. If different elements with different decay rates give a range that closely overlap, then the likelihood of their being altered or having variable initial amounts.
On light, I have read about the variability of light speed but these changes seem to apply at the earliest period of the universe when things were settling down. Frankly, the only way I can see a YEC perspective with our current understanding would be that God created things with the appearance of age. If that is the case, then no evidence would ever show otherwise.